My experience with Neo-Calvinism is that it is has strong characteristics of fundamentalism. The theology isn't about reformed traditions, for example "Agree with me or you are wrong." even to the point that they strongly disagree with other reformed traditions such as Lutherans.

Well the author of the post has demonstrated a belief that he has the answers, and can determine who should and shouldn't be trusted.

These men display profound disregard of other Christian traditions and movements outside their own. I highly doubt that they are entirely unaware of these other movements; certainly Mohler at least isn't. Ignoring other Christians just isn't a responsible or reasonable posture.

Also, they are entirely interested in the appeal of New Calvinism to people who are already Christian. Do they never think about how New Calvinism sounds to those outside the church? It looks like they live in little Christian social bubbles, tucked securely away from meaningful interaction with outsiders, where they don't notice how their Gospel sounds to people who aren't already like them.

Wow. Is this what it has come to? The word "fundamentalist" has strong pejorative overtones anyway, but even if it didn't, it's clear that you mean it as such in your post. Not that you would ever engage in any sort of "us against them" mentality, especially not since you critique such an attitude in others.

1. "Story" and "structures of thought" are not incompatible. This is surely a false dichotomy.

2. Listen more closely to what DeYoung actually says about evangelicalism's roots. He specifically says he talking about America. He points out that until roughly the last 150 years or so to be evangelical was to be Reformed. And he's mostly right if you add a couple of decades. Looking at American history, I think he's trying to push us back to the Second Great Awakening.

3. The particular concern here was for people who want to engage the faith theologically and intellectually. You might disagree, but I think they have a point. A previous comment pointed to another blog post on this same video, and the same point was made in the comments section there.

4. In your comments about secularism, you invoke Kuyper, a figure about whose thought not all Calvinists agree. But even besides that, you paint with an awfully broad brush here, isolating Tim Keller, discarding Mark Driscoll, ignoring Matt Chandler, Tullian Tchividjian, Doug Wilson, D.A. Carson, and others. There is a lot of disagreement within the New Calvinism on what culture is and how to engage it. I just don't think the participants for this video were all that interested in those questions for the sake of this video.

It feels as though you were looking for a reason to be critical. In drawing lines and overgeneralizing, you've certainly committed some of the same fallacies that you criticize the New Calvinists for. As a New Calvinist who has subscribed to Out of Ur for years, I'm deeply disappointed.

"This is why I am more than curious to know what moves Tim Keller to align himself with these Neo-Reformed leaders. Insights anyone?"

That would probably be because Keller is a minister in the PCA who, like these men, holds to the authority of inerrant scripture. It shouldn't be surprising. The Gospel Coalition spreads across denominational boundaries and even includes some men who wouldn't see themselves as "Reformed" or "Calvinist".

Is New Calvinism really New Fundamentalism? Time will tell, but I think we can be certain that what is left of the Emergent movement in really just Old Liberalism on the road to mainline apostasy. The next ten years will be terribly interesting for both movements.

I was taken in by Calvinism in formative years but, after seminary, saw it as a poor man's theology. It's easy to understand, easy to assimilate and has an answer for everything. It also appeals to a need for intellectual prowess by means of theological short cuts and prooftexting (called "nuance"). To say young people hunger for neo-Calvinism--on their own--without being baited into it, is a stretch, if true at all.

There is a difference between "New Calvinism" and "Neo-Calvinism"--a big difference actually.

I just thought someone should point that out. Labels are slippery and problematic for sure, but in this instance the distinction is important.

I'm neither (new or neo) but I have friends in both camps and they are certainly not the same thing.

Peace.

Really, Url, you have lost your mind for allowing this thread to be posted.

David Fitch has a view of evangelicalism that doesn't line up with the neo-Reformed view. That much is clear. But to accuse the neo-Reformed of being fundamentalists is simply mud-slinging. Fitch's very definition of fundamentalism allows him to tilt the deck toward his conclusion ("insularity," "distrust toward culture," and "an 'us against them' mentality" are rather vague conceptions in his usage and not the best marks of classic fundamentalism anyway).

Plus, Fitch confuses neo-Reformed convictions for prejudices and his own convictions for broad evangelical beliefs. For example, when did Story become a key element of historic evangelicalism's public witness? As beneficial as the renewed emphasis on Story has been in recent years, neither Edwards nor Wesley would've recognized it as a core element of the gospel or Christian ministry.

Fitch is simply biased, and his article demonstrates little else. A neo-Reformed writer could just as easily have painted Fitch himself as a proto-liberal (think Charles Briggs in the late 1800s). This, too, would've been inaccurate and loaded, but it would pretty closely mirror Fitch's approach here. More self-criticism and a willingness to engage others fairly would've made this an entirely different piece.

Dr. Camille Lewis and I made a similar case back in September here: http://www.anwoth.org/series/the-adjusted-gospel-of-t4g/

The problem is that there are (not to be overly reductionistic here) two major types of people within this new movement. First are the people who have never been a part of fundamentalism. They don't understand what fundamentalism is like, and they don't like being called fundamentalist. The other group used to be fundamentalists, but this new group of friends seems so much different from the teetotaling group they grew up with that they don't understand why we still view them as fundamentalist.

History is repeating itself, and this new fundamentalism may wear a different set of clothes, but it is substantially the same creature.

To Weakarticle,
Thanks for the challenge. But to say I am bias is hardly to dispell my arguments. It would hardly serve any purpose to say the New Calvinists are biased, Right? We all come from places, contexts and hard won convictions. The question for me is, Are the new Calvinists leading us further into God's Mission in the world, or into a retrenchment? This is an important question, hardly a bias rant.
My pushback would be that I stated up front a definition of what fundamentalism is/looks like. I think it's fair to say that what I did was a rhetorical strategy: i.e. I stated what I thought fundamentalism is in terms that it has historically been understood, and then I asked (did not deduce) whether this video showed signs of this phenomenon. You're right I chose "fundamentalism" as the issue because it framed the question well for me and my purposes. But instead of ranting how I am bias, why don't you tell me reasons why the New Calvinism is not playing out a new fundamentalism? I'd be comforted by that.

David,

I found Kevin's comments about the "Emergent Movement" encouraging. He obviously finds the movement as a whole problematic (hence his book) but he does say that it represents some good and has some overlap with the neo-reformed movement. He says it was motivated by the same reaction against cheap grace that the neo-reformed movement is reacting against. And he mentioned its desire to move towards social justice as right. Recognizing the good, even if it's minimal, in other movements one clearly disagrees with points towards not being fundamentalist in disposition to me.

David,

Is this really some sort of therapy for your troubled soul or is it something else? Are we to believe that if someone gives you a good reason as to why you are wrong, based solely on the opinion of someone in the blogosphere, you will think the best of the Reformed movement?

I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and give it a try. You are wrong. I do a lot of evangelism in the public square, on college campuses, etc. Comparatively speaking, we're seeing many more believers engaging the culture with the gospel in public who are Reformed than who are not.

If that's "insular", then so be it.

I would agree. I think I agree with your conclusion, but I'm not sure I agree with your analysis. Having grown up in fundamentalism and still being accused of being such (even though most in my own circles have repudiated me with the dreaded "conservative evangelical" label), I personally think that it is irrational for anybody to disagree with your conclusion that the New Calvinism is a new fundamentalism.

However, I am thinking of fundamentalism in a denotative way and ignoring all of its bad connotations. Since most think of its yucky connotations, most in New Calvinism will vehemently and rightly resist the label.

Since "fundamentalism" is a pejorative term in the eyes of most people (excepting radical fundamentalists) it complicates reasonable discussion because it puts the accused on the defensive.

But I see both pros and cons with the resulting conclusion of your analysis although I think by using the term "fundamentalism" only in a pejorative way as you have done has prejudiced the discussion.

What do you mean by "fundamentalism"? Are you speaking of the J. Gresham Machens of the 20's who, (though he specifically was uncomfortable with the term), were accused of the very same things that you indicate in the above video? Or are you speaking of the post-Ockenga fundamentalists?

If you are accusing them of being like the earliest fundamentalists, fine. I would agree with you and I would also concur that there was a definite "we/they" mentality which you seem to think is wrong. But (and I'm not trying to be combative), what is wrong with a "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to the conflict of ideas? In fact, aren't you enjoying the same kind of mentality when you talk about "them"?

I'm not offended by that. You think that "them" are wrong and your article is clearly appealing to those respondents that will find comfort in being a part of the "us" who are put off by the New Calvinism. That's all perfectly fair. But does that make you fundamentalists?

It is God who invented the us/them dichotomy and it is impossible to avoid it. Some are his children; some are not. I think it is almost silly of people to accuse "fundamentalists" for being "us vs. them" when their accusation effectuates the very same result. Furthermore, while it is not ungodly or "fundamentalist" to suggest that "we" are right and "they" are wrong about any area of doctrine. It is wrong to be wrong, but one is not wrong simply because he has the temerity to think that others are wrong especially if he happens to be right! And if he finds some one to agree with him suddenly they are now an official "us." What's wrong with that?

To disagree is fine. To argue over right and wrong is necessary. To say that Mohler and DeYoung are absolutely wrong would be much more impressive to me than to conjure up an evocative connotation that muddies the water simply because they have the spine to say that some people are right and others are wrong.

Having said that, I think that the New Calvinism is a good thing and, yes, in my mind it does very much give the impression of being similar to the earliest fundamentalists. Sadly, I would also have to agree that there is an insularity (particularly the hero worship) that smacks of the post-Ockenga fundamentalism that I have grown to deplore.

As one of "them", the answers to your questions are, in order, yes, yes, yes and yes. Caveat: you get reductive answers when you ask reductive questions.

Thanks for asking.

I've attempted a response--it was a little lengthy for the comment so I just posted an article on it:

http://fbcnewlondon.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-new-calvinism-really-new.html

Paging through the comments here, I like the note by Bob Bixby regarding hero worship -- because there's no hero worship in other trends in evangelidom, especially the Chrismatic end, the Emergent end, and the "Catalyst" end. In those circles they have prophets, leaders, mentors and influencers. No heroes though.

Is it a problem that there are personalities that are larger than life who lead or guide moevements? I think yes, but that problem isn't less-prevalent in other factions -- it's simply what those factions hold against the small-"r" reformed types, and I think that's becuase the leaders in that faction are formidable and vocal in speaking to the need for real change for the sake of staying true to Christ.

There's also a pretty subtle issue in this post: the subtitle.

David's essay critiquing (I guess) the video and the statements made there is about the problem that in some respects the "new Calvinism" is like early fundamentalism; David then conflates early fundamentalism with "late" fundamentalism and says, "We have the answers, we distrust everything about everything that is not us."

But check the subtitle of this essay: "Is the rise of Calvinism among the young helping or hurting evangelicalism and the church's mission?"

That's a great question -- which CT has really not asked of seeker-sensitive movements, and charismatic movements, and the emerg* movements, and the "Catalyst" movement(s). The question is one which really points at the subject and says, "I suspect there's something wrong with this."

The reason this is important to note is how un-CT-like this question is at its core -- at least the CT we all know and tolerate from the last 20 years or so. It's wildly ironic that the magazine founded by conservative evangelicals is now worried that actual, theological, ecclessiastical evangelicalism where the evangel of Christ rather than business process, the preception of unbelievers, amped-up feelings posed as the Holy Spirit, or all the derivatives of doubt is at the center of the message may actually be "hurting evangelicalism and church mission".

"These are the marks of classic fundamentalism."

I'll challenge that statement. Therese are some marks of fundamentalism but I think a good read of someone like Marsden would show that there is something more to it. How would you incorporate the anti-intellectualism of fundamentalist leaders during the fundamentalist/modernist controversy of last century? What about the separatist nature from each other and society? What about dogmatism to preferential issues like dress, consumption, Bible translation?

This post is intriguing, yes, but not completely thought out. Your three categories are essentially the same thing. Yet as Marsden, Carpenter, and Hunter all point out in their scholastic work there is something more high pitched in fundamentalism than simple social isolation. There is a degree of spiritual superiority over others who have been corrupted by "liberal" translations/theologies.

Marsden has said that a fundamentalist is an evangelical looking for a fight. Maybe it is that simple.

That said I doubt that the Neo-Reformed view is a neo-fundamentalism. I would suggest that neo-fundamentalism is neo-fundamentalism and there are plenty of personalities and example of that in society.

Of course I have also noted that Mark Driscoll is our modern equivalent to J Frank Norris...but enough on that.

Does anyone have hard data on this "movement"? How many "neo Calvinists" are there really out there? Or is the just a buzz that is discussed by a lot of people who happen to have a large audience? Seriously, out of millions of Christians in the US... It seems to me that our media always needs a new movement to talk about. And we bloggers go along with it too bc it give us a foil for our own views.

Thanks David, I think it's an excellent post that raises an excellent question. My guess would be "yes." The neo-reformed movement puts off a strong vibe quite similar to the fightin fundies of yesteryear... i.e. that all outsiders are very suspect, at best, apostates at worst.

Frank Turk: "As one of "them", the answers to your questions are, in order, yes, yes, yes and yes. Caveat: you get reductive answers when you ask reductive questions.

Thanks for asking."

Dat's funny.

Well, you did ask for input.

despite the attempts at revising the history of the American religious experience, I'd like to offer this simple statement:

The American Christian religious experience has always been pluriform. It was not overwhelmingly "reformed"--in the sense that the people in the video mean by the word.

I think someone already pointed this out about the wide range of tribes within evangelicalism.

We could only say "reformed" in the sense that it was overwhelmingly "protestant".

While it's lovely that people are enthusiastic for their particular understanding/theological paradigm, it would be nice if people were a little more careful about history. Especially since some in the "calvinist" stream have always believed themselves to be the "keepers of the theology" of evangelicalism.

I know the historical claim is important when you're trying to (consciously or not) dominate the story line or get the upperhand on who gets to "define evangelicalism", but claims like these only serve to undermine people's credibility.

What's sad is that many people will gladly walk away from being associated with evangelicalism if said association must be based on our acquiescing to such revisionist storylines and theological dominating.

What's even more sad is that some of our Calvinist brothers would simply say "good riddance". (as proven by some of the comment writers blogs over the years)

What would be more in keeping with a brotherly, kindhearted, and forbearing spirit (Gal. 5) would be for some of you here to simply take a breath and a step back and do some self searching about what and how you're communicating.

Ha! An article about a "movement" that is perceived as being bias, by an obviously bias author. Holy smokes, will wonders never cease?

To quote Albert Mohler;

"The Reformation was not an experiment in abstract theological debate, it was a life or death struggle to get the Gospel right."

Please remember that without Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the church door, the odds are quite good that we'd all still be Catholic, which I'm not OK with. Why is there such a resurgence in Calvinism, or whatever you wish to label it? Because the Emergent movement left so many adrift, there was no real heart behind that movement because it shifted focus away from scripture and God's sovereignty. This generation wants something deeper, something more meaningful. As John Piper states, "We must dig for gold rather than rake leaves when taking up the scriptures." Piper also recently said that he loves conversation with Arminians, but only those who absolutely love the Bible and speak it from their lips, rather than just lines from some theologians recent book. That sound fundamentalist to you? Or is Reformed theology so despised in some circles because it clings tightly to scripture as authoritative, and God's sovereignty as supreme?

Phillip Johnston asked: "Is New Calvinism really New Fundamentalism? Time will tell, but I think we can be certain that what is left of the Emergent movement in really just Old Liberalism on the road to mainline apostasy. The next ten years will be terribly interesting for both movements."

First regarding the article, I believe this author is biased and admit that, having a background in Methodism (and having in later life become Eastern Orthodox), I have a similar bias. At the same time, I would want to resist stereotyping the Neo-Calvinist movement as this author has done and also the Emergent movement as Phillip has done above, even though I think there are likely some good reasons for their doing so. I think within each of these movements we find sincere attempts to reclaim aspects of the Christian tradition that at one point in Christian history were all present within the Church--before East and West went into Schism and before the Protestant Reformation. At the same time, I believe elements foreign to a right Apostolic understanding of the Scriptures have been interjected in both movements and will ultimately frustrate their adherents to the degree that those adherents both hold those particular elements as essential to a right Christian faith and yet also want to have life in full experiential communion with Christ.

Fitch has jumped the shark. He goes on an anti-Reformed rant every few weeks. It's lame and predictable. And his disingenuous "I'm just asking questions" approach is SO Brian McLaren, circa 2001.

I used to have respect for Out of Ur. Now I see they just want to bring gasoline to someone else's flame wars.

Just a couple thoughts...

1) Doesn't Roman Catholicism have a "deep well," a "meaty, robust" theology? I mean the Catechism alone is thick, not to mention the numerous works it cites. If depth alone is the appeal, then De Young et al actually seem to be saying that present cultural currents are driving people to the closed system of Calvinism, not necessarily the truth of the system.

2) Reformed Christians have not been the only or primary users of the name "evangelical." When the west was won in America, it was done so by Methodists and Baptists...who were, by and large, Arminian. John Wesley used the word "evangelical." Last I checked, his Methodist movement introduced more souls to Jesus than the Puritan retreat from "the world."

I admit, there aren't many "options" out there. Churches ARE afraid of wrestling with the deep questions of life and faith, and churches that decide to engage successfully connect people to Christ.

Despite my Wesleyan differences from them, I commend "New Calvinists" who do introduce people to Jesus Christ.

"It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."

David-

To answer your question - "Is the rise of Calvinism among the young helping or hurting evangelicalism and the church's mission?" I think it would be helpful to look at the number of church-planting churches, and to see how many of those were planted by "neo-calvinists". Outreach magazine did a study in 2007 and the top 5 church planting churches were all reformed. Does that help to answer your question?

Additionally, many in the new reformed movement regularly cross denominational and theological differences for the sake of building up the church. Look at the lineup for the next Exponential Conference - it is filled with people who would identity themselves as reformed.

Also, I don't think it is helpful to continue to label Mark Driscoll as the pastor who swears and I would challenge to find the audio of any instance of Driscoll swearing in the last five years. I do know that he has publicly repented of how he has used language in the past, but it just seems unloving to perpetuate a myth and a stereotype of a brother in Christ.

Kevin,
Sorry about the Driscoll misfire ... I was trying to illustrate what I meant by cultural engagement-that it is the actual inhabiting and conversing with the culture, understanding them enough to interact in a way that captures what's good, rejects what is rebllious etc... I was contrasting that to translating a church service into music, or speaking style, or dress or even art.
As for church planting. I am interested in this question. Because church planting alone means little to me, it is the kind of church planting that is relevant to my questions. For years church planting has been the capture of either re-cycled Christians, or disenchanted Christians or people raised as Christians but can't relate any more. I'm not just saying this, there's alot of reserach etc. that few would disagree with. To recapture backslidden Christians, or sons and daughters of Christians is all fine, but in the end it only seeks to preserve the church, not engage those outside of Christ culturally with the gospel and His Mission. I have concerns that Acts 29 is doing an update version of the former. I am sure commenters on this blog will see it as again my agenda and I regret that. But the questions for me remain worth asking and probing.

David-

I took no personal offense on the Driscoll comment, I just feel like sometimes he's treated like the kid who wet his pants in 2nd grade and now he's in high school and yet everyone keeps bringing it up.

To your second question - I do think a lot of church plants capture "re-cycled Christians, disenchanted Christians and people raised in Christian homes who cannot relate anymore." But this is not new to this movement - it is what a lot of the seeker-sensitive churches did, it is what the purpose-driven churches did, and that is what the new church planting movements of today are doing. I don't want to sound complacent on the matter, but the reality is that in a society where something like 80% of the people identify themselves as "christian" there are going to be a lot of people in our churches who are somewhat familiar with the Christian faith and yet they might still be complete strangers to Jesus. Additionally, I believe that Ed Stetzer has done some research showing the relationship between baptisms and church-plants and he argues that church-planting is the most effective form of evangelism.

I would guess that a big reason this article has received such polarizing responses is because neo-calvinism isn't defined beyond posting a video from The Gospel Coalition. This a bit problematic because the Gospel Coalition includes a wide range of people and churches. It was started by Tim Keller and D.A. Carson and Keller has done an awful lot to cross theological and denominational lines for the sake of the gospel. Redeemer has planted non-PCA churches, Keller has spoken at numerous events hosted by a wide range of evangelicals - including the Willow Creek Leadership Summit, and he just recently shared a stage with Bill Hybels at a conference in NYC. Keller is one example, but I do think that there are many within the new calvinist movement who are eager to partner with those outside of their particular stream. For all the negative coverage that Driscoll gets, he has worked hard to partner with Christians who differ from his own convictions - including Rick Warren and Craig Groeschel.

And lastly, to your point about how the new calvinists relate to culture: It seems like the younger calvinists cannot win. If we seek to understand and learn from aspects of our culture, we're written off as "hipsters" who only like shows such as "Mad Men" because we want to be "cool". But if we reject aspects of our culture then we are in danger of becoming "fundamentalists". I know you didn't write the book or article about Christian hipsters, but I hope you can understand my point. It seems like all eyes are on this movement and any misstep is used to critique, criticize or outright attack those who find themselves within it.

Kevin,
Thanks for the helpful response. I think there is a gigantic gap between the New Calvinists and the (for lack of a better term) Neo Anabaptist part of the Missional church movement from which i speak. We see the culture differently in a way where your statement "the reality is that in a society where something like 80% of the people identify themselves as "christian"" doesn't apply. I realize in the south ... this statment still applies ... not so in large urban suburban areas in North and Canada. My problem is that people are still operating like your statement still applies in places where society is decidedly post Christendom.
Thanks for the discussion ... and we need to continue to talk about this stuff.

"I realize in the south ... this statement still applies ... not so in large urban suburban areas in North and Canada."

David,

Can you point to some research that supports your claim? Peter Berger's work, for instance, seems to suggest you may be reaching a bit with your "decidedly post Christendom" view.

Ron, While I'm too lazy to find the study, I can say that for the northwest, which constitutes part of the north, what David is saying is true. The last numbers I saw for most unchurched cities in the US had the 3 major cities in the NW (Spokane, Portland, Seattle) all in the top 10, with none over 40%.

I would venture to guess that maybe 2/3 of those who identify as Christian are really practicing, which puts it in a range of 20-27% Christian, with a large weight of that in the elderly range. I would also venture to guess that the numbers are similar in the northeast and are trending that way throughout most of the US.

From the standpoint of someone who lives in Portland, OR - I can say post Christendom is here and it's spreading quite rapidly.

Please be more careful in terminology. NeoCalvinism has been around about a century, "new Calvinism" about a decade, and what's so egregious about conflating the two is that NeoCalvinism stands for the exact opposite approach to culture that you describe as fundamentalistic. Just look up NeoCalvinism on wikipedia for a summary.

After years growing up in southern fundamentalism but being introduced to evangelicalism through InterVarsity, I went to a reformed seminary and felt I was back square in the fundamentalist culture. It was intellectually sophisticated but nonetheless so "us/them" that the reformed culture there had a such dense mass that no light could get out. I was stunned. I thought intellectual sophistication led to a certain awareness of the limits of one's own position. Not so at this seminary. It was all certainty, all the time.

I'd suggest two more characteristics inherent in fundamentalism that seem to appear in New Calvinism:

4) A tendency to make certain preachers heroes (the result of combining authoritarianism with no objective authority structure, so the individual preacher becomes the ultimate authority on all maters);

5) An overemphasis on the fall and sin without putting it in the context of an original good creation that still contains abiding goodness and divine intentions for creation (this is the theological foundation that results in B, the distrust of culture);

To say Calvinists are the attackers is rather a biased view. After attending Liberty Seminary and working in several denominations, the Arminian and "Biblicist" view tend to be the aggressors and have their endless jokes about election, etc. I used to be one of them. When I began to lean reformed, I didn't sense Piper and Chandler out there bashing Arminians. Driscoll, yes, but very few on the other side. Since they have been the target of so many jokes, it seems the attitude is pretty much expected.